If Trump Loses In November, What Do You Think Happens Next

[GrantDawg]

Engel testified already. He was avaible to ask his side of this if the committee cared to ask.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

[RainMaker]

What does that say about the Hutchinson testimony today? That was from almost a week ago.

[PilotMan]

I love how one thing is enough to nullify everything (regarding testimony) yet we've had to deal with this mfer and his family, who speak out of both sides of their mouths all day long, and we're supposed to take ALL of it as the honest truth (whichever narrative fits).

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

What did they screw up? They sent subpoenas to people and those who chose to abide by the law followed them and those who didn't didn't.

They can only work with the people who are willing to talk to them.

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Rainmaker, the agents are willing to testify, and Engel already has. Either the commitee didn't ask him about this, or he contradicted it and they had her testify anyway. I think the commitee hasn't asked him because the Reps I have seen comment on this have said they haven't seen any direct collaboration, and I don't believe they would have asked her to testify to this if he had already denied it.

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

Utlimately, she could be vindicated. But if they really didn't ask these 2 people about this incident (likely because they didn't know about it months ago) and they deny it happened, that is a huge unforced error by the committee. And it's not even the most relevant information/evidence of a crime. The other stuff is far more damning. But if her story about the motorcade or the ketchup on the wall are denied under oath, her credibility is shot. And for nothing other than great Twitter fodder for a couple days.

Yeah they screwed up by not trying to corroborate it with other witnesses who have already testified and would presumably be willing to answer follow up questions.

Originally Posted by PilotMan

I love how one thing is enough to nullify everything (regarding testimony) yet we've had to deal with this mfer and his family, who speak out of both sides of their mouths all day long, and we're supposed to take ALL of it as the honest truth (whichever narrative fits).

They suck more, and I don't think anyone in any place I engage in discussion actually believes that side, but it looks like the committee made an unnecessary unforced error here. Like others said these parts weren't even the most damaging parts, they were just the most sensationalistic, but if you're going to put that out there corroborate it first or stick to the non-hearsay parts.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

Yeah they screwed up by not trying to corroborate it with other witnesses who have already testified and would presumably be willing to answer follow up questions.

We don't know any of that though. We don't even know when they found out what Hutchinson had to say. We don't know if they were or weren't asked to corroborate. Remember that she switched lawyers just a few weeks ago. This could be very new.

Like I don't trust anyone in this situation, but until we know what was asked of people and when, it's all speculation. I would hope the committee will be putting together a full report at the end that has everyone's testimony.

[JPhillips]

The part that really matters, Trump wanting to go to the Capitol and the Secret Service refusing to let him, has been corroborated by Trump himself.

[Ksyrup]

We certainly don't know. The problem is, whether the committee knows has been called into question. But time will tell. These aren't just anonymous sources denying her testimony. Supposedly they are willing to testify so we'll have both sides eventually. Again, the issue is the committee likely not having both sides before they put her up there.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

The part that really matters, Trump wanting to go to the Capitol and the Secret Service refusing to let him, has been corroborated by Trump himself.

And the Secret Service sources from what I just saw on Twitter.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

These aren't just anonymous sources denying her testimony.

They are literally anonymous sources that are not even part of the Secret Service. Unless I missed someone going on the record and saying her testimony is false.

[cuervo72]

Diversionary tactic which people are (happily) gobbling up.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

They are literally anonymous sources that are not even part of the Secret Service. Unless I missed someone going on the record and saying her testimony is false.

My emphasis was on the fact that they weren't just denying it, they are saying the two people involved in the story will testify to the contrary. That's different than someone just reporting that she's lying.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

My emphasis was on the fact that they weren't just denying it, they are saying the two people involved in the story will testify to the contrary. That's different than someone just reporting that she's lying.

The committee put out a statement when those reports surfaced that they would love to have anyone testify under oath to clarify. We'll see if they are willing to back up their anonymous words.

[sterlingice]

FWIW, nothing about it is on the front page of Fox News

SI

[CrimsonFox]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

Diversionary tactic which people are (happily) gobbling up.

I mean the timing of the roe vs wade ruling was a whole diversionary tactic to make people forget about the jan 6 comittee

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by CrimsonFox

I mean the timing of the roe vs wade ruling was a whole diversionary tactic to make people forget about the jan 6 comittee

I dunno - Supreme Court schedules are done months in advance and usually they release the first set of opinions for a year in June.

SI

[JPhillips]

SCOTUS is saving evisceration of the administrative state for tomorrow, the last day of the term.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

SCOTUS is saving evisceration of the administrative state for tomorrow, the last day of the term.

Yup - it's all just a matter of who is going to deliver the killing blow. Roberts or someone else. God forbid we have working governmental agencies that don't have to run every regulation through a dysfunctional Congress anytime they want to make a new rule.

SI

[Thomkal]

Jan 6 Committee subpoenas top white house lawyer under Trump, Pat Cippolini

[Lathum]

I keep hearing a lot of people talking about the secret service driver allegedly refuting the assault claim. Lots of people saying he should testify under oath that it didn't happen, as if no one has ever lied under oath.

[Bee]

Originally Posted by Lathum

I keep hearing a lot of people talking about the secret service driver allegedly refuting the assault claim. Lots of people saying he should testify under oath that it didn't happen, as if no one has ever lied under oath.

You mean like the last 3 Supreme Court nominees?

[BYU 14]

Exactly, the SCOTUS appointees pretty much made it clear that the oath is meaningless, pretty sure a ruling will follow that protects people that do.

[Thomkal]

Yes you had Gohmert complaining in an interview recently that Republicans couldn't even lie to the FBI and Congress anymore. And that's the point, people in public trust need to be held accountable when they lie under oath like the supreme court justices.



Reports are that the secret service driver is pretty loyal to Trump, the king of lying. So get him under oath about it so its on the record. The Jan 6 committee is under oath, so they too should be held accountable if they lie about what they found or try to hide some of it.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Thomkal

Yes you had Gohmert complaining in an interview recently that Republicans couldn't even lie to the FBI and Congress anymore. And that's the point, people in public trust need to be held accountable when they lie under oath like the supreme court justices.



Reports are that the secret service driver is pretty loyal to Trump, the king of lying. So get him under oath about it so its on the record. The Jan 6 committee is under oath, so they too should be held accountable if they lie about what they found or try to hide some of it.

Pretty loyal is an understatement. Some of the SS with Trump on J6 were reportedly cheering on the insurrection.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by Atocep

Pretty loyal is an understatement. Some of the SS with Trump on J6 were reportedly cheering on the insurrection.

We are learning that letting a bunch of Anti-Americans into high level military and law enforcement was a really bad idea.

We were so worried about foreign agents infiltrating that we dropped the ball on watching out for domestic terrorists.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

We are learning that letting a bunch of Anti-Americans into high level military and law enforcement was a really bad idea.

We were so worried about foreign agents infiltrating that we dropped the ball on watching out for domestic terrorists.

Don't you realize they are the true patriots?

[cuervo72]

After the attempted coup, this cannot happen.

Supreme Court to hear case on GOP ‘independent legislature’ theory that could radically reshape elections - POLITICO https://t.co/YL1xOZ1zzf

— Adam Kinzinger🇺🇦🇺🇸✌️ (@AdamKinzinger) June 30, 2022

Of course a couple of replies bring up his previous glowing recommendations of Kavanaugh and Gorsuch...

[cuervo72]

This is the guy Ben likes to quote, yes?

All y'all bitching about the Supreme Court can go to hell. We've spent fifty years watching them give you every damn thing you wanted and repeatedly stopping us even though we operated democratically. Now you don't have them and let your persuasion skills atrophy. Screw you.

— Erick Erickson (@EWErickson) June 30, 2022

[BYU 14]

What someone posted on a friends facebook page after my friend posted if you are okay having jewish, hindu, muslin kids sit through christian prayer, you better be pkay with having christian kids sit through hindu, muslim, jewish prayer.

Imagine if that would fly if we sent our own kids over seas.
Like it or not, they're in christian lands and they knew what they were getting into when they moved.

The fucking hypocrisy, and my very tame, direct response below

America is not the land of the Christian, it is the land of the free, which encompasses all religions

[Flasch186]

One thing we assume is that they know what the weird hypocrisy is and that that really is a thing. Perhaps we’re missing the foundation that they actually know these things.

Or maybe it’s all faux outrage hiding a long plan of creating a theocracy but can’t use that word so you just get rid of the words or project them on your opponents ask the whole executing the long plan of creating a Christian theocracy and once we’re there they’ll say,” jeez, how did we get here!? But…. Since we’re here either join us or leave.” Muwahahahahah Bible. Sin. Gays. Guns. Love. You’re forgiven!!!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[PilotMan]

There is apparent video evidence that shows that at the very least, he lunged over the driver's shoulder to keep the car from leaving, rather than steer it while it was moving.

[Lathum]

I hear a lot of voices on the right claiming the committee is biased and they aren’t allowing other points of view or counter arguments. What could the other view possible be? All I hear from them is it wasn’t “as bad” as the left claims. It was mostly peaceful. Conspiracy theories about Antifa. Despite all the evidence to the contrary. Countless hours of video showing angry white men bearinf cops and trashing the capitol. They claim it was peaceful despite a gallows being erected and then chanting hang Mike pence.

I just can’t fathom what the counter point of view is that could possibly refute the video evidence. Audio recordings. Cell phone evidence. Text messages.

[PilotMan]

There isn't any. That's the real answer. The reason they believe that is because it's easier to believe that than it is to believe that their beliefs are wrong. That's the power of faith in its truest form.

[Flasch186]

Imagine the shame they think they’ll feel if they realize that they’ve been swept up in a cult all along

That’s tough to face

Easier to start the course


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by Lathum

I hear a lot of voices on the right claiming the committee is biased and they aren’t allowing other points of view or counter arguments. What could the other view possible be? All I hear from them is it wasn’t “as bad” as the left claims. It was mostly peaceful. Conspiracy theories about Antifa. Despite all the evidence to the contrary. Countless hours of video showing angry white men bearinf cops and trashing the capitol. They claim it was peaceful despite a gallows being erected and then chanting hang Mike pence.

I just can’t fathom what the counter point of view is that could possibly refute the video evidence. Audio recordings. Cell phone evidence. Text messages.

Almost a year ago, Pelosi blocked two of his picks, Banks and Jordan from the committee, and so McCarthy pulled all Republicans from it, and said at the time maybe we will have our own hearing. Anybody hear about that again? That's who the Trumpsters who have been complaining about bias. should be complaining to. Demand that they produce evidence that Antifa, BLM, or the FBI were behind it all. But no the Democrats are the corrupts one here because Trump clearly won the election.



https://www.cbsnews.com/news/kevin-m...dan-jim-banks/


I hope at the end of the hearing if they don't state it themselves, reporters ask them about any evidence of those groups either being involved or that any of the loudest shouters like Gaetz came to the Committee with actual evidence. Like to see Liz Cheney address that.

[Lathum]

Even if Jim Jordan was on the committee, which I agree his whole purpose would be to muck everything up, what would his argument be for the "other side?"

Who could we possibly hear testimony from refuting what happened when we see it all with our own eyes? I just don't see how having a Jordan or MTG on this committee alters the actual facts and evidence that clearly backs them up.

[PilotMan]

I think if the right extremists took a play from trump's playbook and just tossed him under the bus, and if the person who called for it and made it happen, had similar credentials as him, like DeSantis or Abbot, they could get rid of their albatross, and double down on their methods in one fell swoop and get momentum before fall.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by Thomkal

Almost a year ago, Pelosi blocked two of his picks, Banks and Jordan from the committee, and so McCarthy pulled all Republicans from it, and said at the time maybe we will have our own hearing. Anybody hear about that again? That's who the Trumpsters who have been complaining about bias. should be complaining to. Demand that they produce evidence that Antifa, BLM, or the FBI were behind it all. But no the Democrats are the corrupts one here because Trump clearly won the election.



https://www.cbsnews.com/news/kevin-m...dan-jim-banks/


I hope at the end of the hearing if they don't state it themselves, reporters ask them about any evidence of those groups either being involved or that any of the loudest shouters like Gaetz came to the Committee with actual evidence. Like to see Liz Cheney address that.

This was only after the original version of a bipartisan committee was rejected by McCarthy. Presumably, with more sane people on a committee, the GOP would have had a chance to do something more than tweet emojis during testimony. The current committee only happened because the original agreed committee was rejected by McCarthy under pressure.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Lathum

Even if Jim Jordan was on the committee, which I agree his whole purpose would be to muck everything up, what would his argument be for the "other side?"

Who could we possibly hear testimony from refuting what happened when we see it all with our own eyes? I just don't see how having a Jordan or MTG on this committee alters the actual facts and evidence that clearly backs them up.

Have you ever watched what these committees are usually like? They wouldn't put up counter evidence on the subject. They would stall, they would character attack, they would constantly bring up anything they could not about the subject. The committee would bring in some like Hutchinson, and one nut-job Republican would ask her if she had an abortion. The next one would ask her about her sexual relationships. The next would ask her about the time her dad worked for some company that is in a negative light. That's what Gym Jordan brings to the table. Anything to give Right-wing media a clip to play ten thousand times an hour.

[Mota]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

I think if the right extremists took a play from trump's playbook and just tossed him under the bus, and if the person who called for it and made it happen, had similar credentials as him, like DeSantis or Abbot, they could get rid of their albatross, and double down on their methods in one fell swoop and get momentum before fall.

They would never let that happen, because Trump always showed loyalty to his inner circle, and he would in turn get it back from them.

/s

[BYU 14]

This is 100% not safe for work, so be cautious. This is what doing your job in Washington gets you now.

Threats of violence over politics has increased heavily in the last few years. But the darkness has reached new lows. My new interns made this compilation of recent calls they’ve received while serving in my DC office.

WARNING: this video contains foul & graphic language. pic.twitter.com/yQJvvAHBVV

— Adam Kinzinger (@RepKinzinger) July 5, 2022

[Thomkal]

A whole bunch of Trump lawyers, Rudy, Lindsay Graham just got subpoenaed in GA election fraud probe:


https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/05/polit...ham/index.html

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by BYU 14

This is 100% not safe for work, so be cautious. This is what doing your job in Washington gets you now.

Threats of violence over politics has increased heavily in the last few years. But the darkness has reached new lows. My new interns made this compilation of recent calls they’ve received while serving in my DC office.

WARNING: this video contains foul & graphic language. pic.twitter.com/yQJvvAHBVV
— Adam Kinzinger (@RepKinzinger) July 5, 2022

These guys just aren't creative in their insults. They also have a real oral fixation.

SI

[Thomkal]

Jan 6 committee got who they wanted to testify at last-don't know the details yet, but Pat Cippolini has agreed to testify.


In other news Lindsay Graham refuses to testify to the GA Grand jury using the same argument that Trump was never successful with it, "its all political"

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by Thomkal

Jan 6 committee got who they wanted to testify at last-don't know the details yet, but Pat Cippolini has agreed to testify.

Nothingburger? Gonna invoke privilege?

Or has he decided to jump ship and flip while there's still value in doing it?

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

Nothingburger? Gonna invoke privilege?

Or has he decided to jump ship and flip while there's still value in doing it?

He has already testified before the Committee, "informally" which they have shown bits of before and with the recent testimony of Hutchinson about what he said, find it hard he will invoke privilege at this point in things.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

Nothingburger? Gonna invoke privilege?

Or has he decided to jump ship and flip while there's still value in doing it?

I would think that if he's on the record, and he was on the record from other witnesses saying that what trump was cooking up was illegal, that he's prepared to testify to a very thin line of things that directly involved him.

He was WH counsel, not trump counsel, meaning he was repping the title and position and protecting the office, not specifically 45.

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by Thomkal

He has already testified before the Committee, "informally" which they have shown bits of before and with the recent testimony of Hutchinson about what he said, find it hard he will invoke privilege at this point in things.

Looks like he will not be testifying "live" in one of the hearings, but rather on tape with a transcript available at some point.

[JPhillips]

There's apparently more documentary footage from a crew that was following Roger Stone and possibly other Stop the Steal leaders.

These fuckers were convinced they were going to win and needed propaganda films to help establish their right to rule.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

There's apparently more documentary footage from a crew that was following Roger Stone and possibly other Stop the Steal leaders.

These fuckers were convinced they were going to win and needed propaganda films to help establish their right to rule.

And, having never suffered a real consequence for anything that they'd ever done ever in their lives, they probably weren't worried about any downside risk (and, depending on how this shakes out, they might have been right about that).

[PilotMan]

If trump or some trump lite candidate wins in 24 you can pretty much guarantee (based on previous actions) that any and all penalties will be wiped clean, and those that sought those punishments will be sent to the salt mines of Kessel or Utah. One or the other.